New Delhi: In a significant pronouncement that is expected to reshape legislative relations between State governments and Governors, the Supreme Court of India today delivered its opinion on a Presidential Reference concerning the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which govern the assent to State Bills.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, categorically ruled that the Governor does not possess the power to simply 'withhold assent' indefinitely (the "withholding simpliciter"). However, the Court simultaneously held that judicial bodies cannot impose strict, fixed timelines on either the Governor or the President to complete their constitutional duties.
This opinion, which resolved 11 out of 14 questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu, arose after a previous two-judge bench ruling in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr.) attempted to prescribe specific time limits for the Governor's action on Bills—a measure the Constitution Bench found to be erroneous.
The 111-page opinion tendered by the Apex Court provides definitive clarity on the scope of gubernatorial discretion, the binding nature of ministerial advice, and the limited scope of judicial review.
Questions Answered by the Constitution Bench
1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
The Bench opined that the Governor does not have the power to simply withhold a bill indefinitely. The Governor is limited to three specific constitutional options:
To assent to the Bill, making it law immediately.
To reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
To withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature, accompanied by a message requesting the House to reconsider the Bill or specific provisions, and suggest amendments.
What happens after the Legislature reconsiders the Bill?
The Court clarified that even if the legislature passes the reconsidered bill (with or without amendments), the Governor cannot withhold assent at this stage. However, the Governor retains the option to reserve the Bill for the President's consideration. The power to reserve the Bill for the President is irrespective of whether the Bill is returned by the Legislature in its amended or unamended form.
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
The Constitution Bench noted that the Governor "ordinarily" exercises functions based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, the Court confirmed that the Governor enjoys discretion in certain functions as provided by the Constitution.
In the context of Article 200, the Court pointed to the phrase "in the opinion of the Governor" (in the second proviso) as a definitive expression of this discretionary power.
The Governor exercises discretion specifically when:
Referring a Bill for the President's consideration.
Returning the Bill to the Legislature with his comments.
The Court emphasized that this interpretation does not grant unfettered powers to the Governor and remains consistent with the concept of a responsible constitutional government.
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
The Court answered that the constitutional choice made by the Governor is not justiciable. This means the courts cannot conduct a merit review of the Governor's decision—they cannot look into the wisdom or appropriateness of the decision itself.
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
While holding that the merits of the Governor's decision are non-justiciable, the Court clarified that Article 361 (which grants personal immunity to the Governor) is not an absolute bar to judicial review.
The courts can take cognizance of prolonged and evasive constitutional inaction. For this limited purpose, a court can issue a direction asking the Governor to exercise one of the constitutional options within a reasonable period of time. The Court observed: "The constitutional office of the Governor is definitely subject to the jurisdiction of the court, to prevent prolonged and evasive constitutional inaction."
5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
The Constitution Bench ruled that the imposition of fixed timelines on the Governor under Article 200, as was done in the Tamil Nadu case, was "erroneous."